A few days ago, an extremely graphic set of videos was released by the Las Cruces Police Department in New Mexico. In the videos, we see the brutal murder of a police officer. After the officer is stabbed, a citizen with a concealed handgun license shoots the homeless man who murdered the police officer and then attempts to save the officer’s life. TTAG reported on the case earlier this week.
I’ve watched a lot of defensive videos and body/dash cams, and I’d have to say that this is one of the most terrible ones I’ve ever seen. If you can’t handle seeing blood, you probably will not want to watch it. If you think you can handle it, you can watch it here.
In short, the police officer approaches a homeless man who had been a problem at a private business. Within seconds, the man pulled out a knife and stabbed the officer several times, causing him to bleed profusely and rapidly.
While the interim police chief says that the officer did nothing wrong, that’s not technically true. It’s well known in policing and concealed carry alike that distance is safety. The closer you are to a dangerous person, the less time you have to draw a pistol and fire it. So, if that person pulls a knife out, they can kill you with it before you have any opportunity to stop them.
The distance a person with a knife can close before you can get a shot off is usually greater than 20 feet, so it pays to keep your distance from a potentially dangerous person. In the event that you have to do something like put handcuffs on them and search them for weapons, it’s a good idea to already have a second police officer with a gun drawn and ready to go to eliminate that time delay. If you’re not a police officer, it’s best to never get within 30 feet of an agitated homeless person if it’s at all avoidable.
After the officer was brutally stabbed, a citizen attempted to save the officer. When threatened by the homeless man, the citizen drew his own concealed pistol and fired several shots, ending the danger. Then, he attempted to use the officer’s radio to get help. But, the wounds were too great and too much blood had been lost and the officer’s life could not be saved.
The other police officers in the department appear to have learned something from this. When I called them about a homeless man who was doing drugs and masturbating on the sidewalk in front of my house, the officer didn’t get anywhere close to the man.
I was a little disappointed that they didn’t remove him from the neighborhood, but after the officer drove away, the man did at least leave. But, more importantly, we can see that they know better now than to approach unstable homeless people.
Bottom line: always assume that homeless people have a knife and might stab you with it, keep your distance, and you’ll be safer. Any threatening or unstable person can be a danger, so always stay on high alert.
Prayers and condolences to his family and fellow officers.
Mental patients and self medicaters have way too much leeway in society. Power even. Unacceptable.
I’ve been accosted by homeless/deranged/demon possessed recently. My gat was ready as was my knife & pepper gel thingy. Moved from Chiraq 35 years ago & know the drill.🙄
If I were you I wouldn’t put a lot of faith in the pepper spray. I demonstrably proved once to a girl that pepper spray will not stop a determined attacker by spraying myself directly in the eyes with her pepper spray then getting up out of a chair and running to her to fake choke her out.
Yes the vodka helped but that’s my point.
Pepper spray effect varies on the individual, no doubt.
And let’s be serious, if someone is actually being violently attacked, that’s exactly the wrong damn time to discover your pepper spray isn’t ‘up to snuff’… 🙁
Still no mention, did the murderer die or not??? “Ending the danger” is rather vague.
The suspect was killed. Confirmed on other news outlets.
ANY person that murders a cop or innocent person, should only be turned over to forensics or the undertaker..no more feeding them..
The only problem with that policy are the many examples of people executed later found to be innocent.
Don’t get me wrong, I used to believe as you do, but my mind got changed by TTAG’s John Wayne Taylor. His argument was sound :
A government should never be in the business of killing it’s citizens, and that’s exactly what happens with far too many prosecutors hell-bent on getting that conviction at any cost. That’s a prosecutor who may be willing to ignore exonerating evidence the charged person was innocent of the crime.
Lock ’em up for life, just don’t execute them…
This is an example of why anyone out and about in a populated area must pay attention to their surroundings. Situational awareness is a must. Even in small towns. That means not having your eyes glued to your phone screen. Pay attention, learn to spot the predators and mentally unstable before they get close enough to prey upon you.
The life you save could be your own, or someone close to you.
It is also an example of how quickly someone with a knife can injure or harm you. 20 feet is only a few steps and an attacker can close that before you can react. And how easily someone with a knife or other weapon can end your life. A thug or nut doesn’t need a gun if they are determined to damage an opponent/victim. if and when thing go bad, they do so very quickly.
Yes, a gun can stop a threat quickly. But only if you notice that threat in time to get to your weapon. And only if you react to that threat quickly. Standing stunned because you were jumped or getting injured or killed because you were distracted by some text or just off in your own little world only adds insult to the injury.
OldManinAl,
You and I must have been typing simultaneously. Clearly, You are faster! 🙂
100%!!!
OldManinAL,
I want to add a critical detail to the extremely important information that you shared:
Even if you have enough distance to draw and get off a shot, a vicious attacker with a knife could still very easily impart a fatal wound. How is that you might be thinking? Simple: if you only have enough time to get off a single shot before your attacker is stabbing you, that single shot could easily be a complete miss or a hit to a non-vital area of your attacker’s body.
Second of all, even if your single shot on target causes massive bleeding, it could easily take at least 20 seconds before your attacker loses enough blood to go unconscious. In case it isn’t obvious, a vicious attacker can stab you several times in 20 seconds and likely impart one or more fatal stab wounds.
The key here is to remember that handguns are very poor “man stoppers” if your attacker is vicious and determined. Unless you shoot your attacker’s spine or brain, you will have to shoot your attacker several times to physically incapacitate him/her in short order–and even then your attacker is very likely to remain able to stab you for at least 5 seconds if not significantly longer.
Moral of the story: maintain as much distance and time as possible–preferably much more than 21 feet and 2 seconds–between yourself and a sketchy person.
If only there would have been a Shove Free Zone Sign…
Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting 5 times. And that’s regardless of caliber.
First: A prayer fo that police officer and his family.
Second: Standing ovation for the citizen who jumped in to help.
Third, a common practice:
Yogi Bera one said “You can observe a lot just by watching”.
At the farmers market, in restaurants, at shopping centers, downtown on the street, watch for unusual behavior, for people who give you more than a casual glance. Anything can be a signal. With practice, it is easy to do. It is not Paranoid, it is prudent.
My hats all have “Ultra Maga” buttons. My t-shirts all have patriotic messages and symbols. I have friends who tell me they are nervous when out with me because they think I make myself a target. I guess I do.
But the number of smiles, high-fives, fist bumps, and positive comments tell me sensible people, Patriots, are all around and are glad to see like-minded folk. Only once have I been threatened and that event was easy to control. I get it about the next time.
So, I wear the flag and studiously take Yogi’s advice.
🙂
listen to the left wing politician basically saying that our constitutional rights are not absolute and can be controlled by government, saying the quite part of their agenda out loud, which is a Marxist socialism concept.
There will not be a homeless vagrant hanging around in our neighborhood, period, whether a cop lets him stay or not.
Fortunately, our city picks up a person and removes them from the streets. No disabled vehicles are allowed on the streets. No graffiti or broken windows are allowed. Bail is also quite high.
Not Here either
1. Hasty generalization: The author generalizes from one specific incident involving a homeless person to make broad assumptions about all homeless people. They state that “always assume that homeless people have a knife and might stab you with it,” which is an unfair generalization based on limited evidence.
2. Confirmation bias: The author selectively focuses on examples that support their belief that homeless people are dangerous. They mention their own experience with a homeless person and how the police did not approach him, using this as evidence to support their argument.
3. Appeal to fear: The author uses fear tactics to persuade the reader to agree with their viewpoint. They emphasize the graphic nature of the video and warn that if the reader can’t handle seeing blood, they should not watch it. This appeal to fear can cloud rational judgment.
4. Availability heuristic: The author relies on the availability of one specific incident (the brutal murder of a police officer) to make assumptions about the likelihood of similar incidents occurring. This cognitive bias can lead to an overestimation of the frequency or probability of an event based on how easily it comes to mind.
5. False cause: The author suggests that the officer’s proximity to the homeless man was a direct cause of the stabbing. They claim that “distance is safety” and imply that if the officer had kept a greater distance, the stabbing could have been prevented. However, this oversimplifies the complex dynamics of the situation and ignores other factors that may have contributed to the outcome.
6. Anchoring bias: The author sets an arbitrary distance (20 feet) as the threshold for potential danger from a person with a knife. This anchoring bias can influence perception and decision-making, as it establishes a fixed reference point without considering the specific circumstances or variables involved.
7. Stereotyping: The author stereotypes homeless people as dangerous and advises readers to always assume they have a knife. This generalization overlooks the diversity and individuality of homeless individuals and perpetuates negative stereotypes. It is important to critically evaluate the information presented in the text and consider alternative perspectives before forming conclusions or judgments.
I’m sure this comment will be deleted because alternative views are bad like the orange man.
Wow! A new commenter who doesn’t understand context or the subject matter nor even the first thing about defense or the dynamics of a criminal attack. In fact, looks like a typical left wing anti-gun ignorance of reality. Also looks like part of a DEI seminar.
For violent crimes where a firearm was not used, excluding the violent crimes of rape and intimate/domestic partner attacks. And also excluding acts of violence against victims committed during robbery or home invasion or in other words attacks upon victims in public spaces outside the home and not in a business being robbed):
In the U.S., including knives and other non-firearm objects, and including hand/feet, and other methods (e.g. pushing off a high place making it look like a fall injury, blow/crushing with a heavy object falling from a height making it look like something came loose and fell on the victim, poisons, chemicals, tripping, suffocation, simulating suicide, etc…), nationwide there are, as of 15 Feb 2024, over 19,000 violent criminal attacks (an increase from 2023) on innocent victims daily that result in serious injury or death (on average – around ~200 deaths immediately on scene, another ~200 within a week after being seriously injured due to ‘complications’ from the injuries sustained in the attack).
When the violent crimes of rape and intimate/domestic partner attacks, and acts of violence against victims committed during robbery or home invasion, and still being violent crimes where a firearm was not used: This number rises to more than 30,000 victims daily across the United States.
~70% of these non-firearm crimes (excluding rape and intimate/domestic partner attacks. And excluding acts of violence against victims committed during robbery or home invasion or in other words attacks upon victims in public spaces outside the home and not in a business being robbed) are committed by violent people that are homeless and they use a knife or other sharpened/pointed object or another hand-held non-firearm object (e.g. blunt object, brick, etc…). The average distance from the victim in most of these attacks when the homeless person begins their attack approach is 15 – 20 feet.
For these ‘non-firearm’ perpetrators (including rape and intimate/domestic partner attacks and acts of violence against victims committed during robbery or home invasion) the average rate of arrest AND prosecution was 3% prior 2023, for such perpetrator activity, in 2023 less than an average of 2% of the perpetrators are arrested AND prosecuted.
The FBI stats for such violent crime reflect those for which the perpetrator was arrested AND prosecuted. For those that die later as a result of their injury in the attack – 98% of the time the cause of death is not listed as due to the use of the non-firearm object/means/method but rather the body function/organ that failed as a result of ‘complications’ due to the serious injury so this means there are thousands of these in the CDC stats listed under ‘body function/organ’ failure categories that were really murder.
Basically, all of this is ‘hidden’ in plain sight by the way ‘stats’ are kept and when you get access for research you find all this in the police reports and the public at large never sees those reports. When you get access for research you find all this in the police reports and find that ‘non-firearm’ ‘things’ and methods are used by criminally violent people ~1000 times more often than a firearm – and you find that homeless people carry out a lottttt of violent attacks.
Oh, and ‘devilsAdvocate’ aside from the rest of your post being complete ignorance… this part exemplifies that ignorance even more > “The author sets an arbitrary distance (20 feet) as the threshold for potential danger from a person with a knife.” > its not ‘arbitrary’ at all, its a proven fact and even taught in law enforcement classes and although its generally stated as 21 feet that’s based upon an average stride and in reality its 19 – 20 feet on average.
so yeah, its not unreasonable at all to think a homeless person just might be violent.
And, in such cases “distance is literally safety” until that safety is breached, but more correctly “distance is safety” in that it gives a precious second for you to set up your defense against the attack, for example, time to draw and fire.
had the officer not been so close to begin with maybe that precious second would have helped him and maybe not – no one can say for sure because no one can predict the future – but its been shown to be fact that the more distance between you and your attacker the better chance you have to defend against the advancing attacker so “distance is safety”, time to enact that ‘increasing odds of safety’ defense of DGU.
‘devilsAdvocate’, your whole post is full of ignorance, and failing to understand context or the subject matter nor even the first thing about defense or the dynamics of a criminal attack. Typical left wing BS ignorance of reality.
I assume everyone has a knife… Not just homeless people. I’m not homeless, and I carry 2 knives. Doesn’t everyone?
“3. Appeal to fear: The author uses fear tactics to persuade the reader to agree with their viewpoint.”
“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
— J. Mattis, Maj General, USMC (ret)
Advocate (at least your handle is honest),
That argument would probably score well in a high school or college debate class. Unfortunately, most of us have to live in the “real world”. “Stereotypes are bad” is an easy trope, unless one considers “how did they BECOME stereotypes?”. No, I don’t think “all homeless people are dangerous”. But we should all be familiar with the (widely available) statistics on drug and alcohol abuse and mental illness among homeless (FAR higher than similar percentages for those not homeless). A drunk or drugged-up person, or someone severely mentally ill, is BY DEFINITION potentially dangerous, since they are not in control of their faculties.
Are you suggesting that a person, to avoid “stereotyping” homeless should simply ignore those facts? Or perhaps it is your view that the “right” way to deal with it is simply approach the homeless person, strike up a conversation, and make a direct evaluation of the potential danger they represent?
You also seem to be unaware of this small, crucial self-protective behavior called “situational awareness”. I try to remain aware of where I am, who is around me, and YES, I make risk-avoidance decisions based on things like “Hmm. It’s night, I’m walking alone, and there are five older teenagers, who are at least dressed like gangbangers, standing on the corner. Perhaps I should insure some space between me and them, eh?” Oh, that makes me a “bad man”?? Tell that to Jesse Jackson, who quite specifically gave that exact example (only he included the racist comment that he couldn’t help feeling relieved when he saw the teenagers were white).
Your understanding of risk-avoidance and situational awareness is of a piece with your reading comprehension and your “wokeness”, as well as your understanding of good self-defense practices. The “twenty foot rule” specifies to maintain a MINIMUM of 20 feet of separation. OF COURSE, if I say Usain Bolt standing on the streetcorner with a knife, yelling at passersby, I’d maintain way MORE than a 20 foot separation. But it is disingenuous to suggest that the officer’s proximity to the attacker had no effect on the attack. If the officer had remained at or beyond 20 feet, the distance alone might have dissuaded the attacker, but if not, it certainly would have given the officer a better opportunity to react and defend himself.
Must be nice to judge other people according to your rules, particularly when you have no “skin in the game”. I think the cop made a major screw up approaching this guy so closely, and I bet pretty much 90% of people seeing this would react the same way. Have fun with your “woke college sociology seminar” approach to the real world. Hope it works out for you.
that bastard moved really fast..and a vest will not stop a knife attack…best move would have been not to confront this guy alone…
You have lots of education but are still an idiot.
“When threatened by the homeless man, the citizen drew his own concealed pistol and fired several shots, ending the danger. ”
I’m not sure if this is true. I’ve read the statement by the citizen shooter and he said he had to go to his car to get his gat.
“A man who witnessed the attack returned to his vehicle and grabbed a gun. The bystander confronted and fatally shot Silva.”
https://www.officer.com/on-the-street/body-cameras/video/53098069/violent-fatal-stabbing-of-nm-police-officer-caught-in-graphic-videos
I could post even more links, but one should suffice. As usual, sloppy reporting from Ms. Sensiba.
Johnny LeBlanc,
I would not characterize this article as poor reporting. At worst I would say it was a bit unclear on the details–although I am reluctant to even say that since this article is about the distancing and reaction time between the attacker and the deceased police officer. (This article is not about the attacker and the bystander.)
To be clear:
The bystander who intervened saw the INITIAL attack from a distance, went to his car (an unknown distance away) to grab his firearm, and then went toward the downed police officer and attacker. As the bystander approached, the attacker then turned his attention toward the bystander and expressed his intent to attack the bystander (at which time the bystander started shooting).
And that last bit makes sense. Why would a police officer casually walking up to some guy in an empty parking lot motivate someone to get out of their car? It typically would not. I believe that the most likely explanation is that the bystander was driving by and saw the initial contact between the cop and the attacker–only stopping and getting out of his car once the cop went down. Maybe the bystander took a few steps toward the downed cop before seeing the knife in the attacker’s hand and decided to go back to his car and grab his firearm “just in case”. Then, as the bystander resumed moving toward the downed cop, the attacker announced his intention to attack the bystander who opened fire in self-defense.
We are not clear whether the citizen had a concealed carry license or not. Such is required in New Mexico, I believe; it is not a Constitutional Carry state. So, is the reason he left his gat in the car because he didn’t have his CCL? Ms. Sensiba could have at least asked that question. A crucial detail, to be sure, leading to another more important lesson.
Always carry. Always.
You never know when someone is gonna get nasty and pull out a blade. A three inch knife is enough to cause plenty of damage. Leaving your gat in the car is not just dumb, but dangerous. If anything we’ve seen since Democrats let loose the animals in 2020, dangerous lunatics are everywhere, and can cause damage any time.
Yup. The whole thing abut mandating we law abiding citznes pay the fee, jump through the hoops, and get our Mother May I Card as a preconditon to “keeping and bearing” is an affront and assault upon us.
That little detail WOULD hve been helpful.
I made my decision to always go about armed after reading of an assault by a gang of homless on a group of cycists.. I am one myself. They had no response to the muggers but handing over theur goods and treasure. I know the plce this happened, and there IS no out, no exit, no escape.
that’s when I decided to pay the thieving piper and get my own Mither May I card. got it in the next state, too, different set of rules, but I still spend a LOT of time in that state as well, particularly on the bike.
I note we are now 29 I think states with what s called permitless, or constitutional, carry. These two states will likely be the last holdouts.. right AFTER DC and New York and New Jersey.
The problem is that LE is paid to close with, and go hands on with people everyone would keep their distance from. Ask me how I know. I had an incident once at a convenience store. Homeless guy was always trespassing and panhandling. I had already arrested him a time or two for the same. This time he ran. I pursued. He stopped, turned and drew a knife. I drew a 1911. He threw the knife down and ran again. I reholstered and pursued. Again. He stopped and turned and we began to grapple. I did a leg sweep and that ended that bullshit. The judge gave him seven years.
Usually homeless kill each other and the police investigate. Unfortunately thanks to bidenomics a huge percentage of Americans are a couple of paychecks away from being homeless. That said not all homeless are evildoers, some are decent people and the only difference between them and a money flaunting blowbag on this forum is they are broke. Too damn bad the good ones cannot trade places like in that hilarious movie Trading Places…
the homeless often rob and attack each other…so having a knife is pretty common…you’re pretty vulnerable out there…
Very good mews that this case went before a good judge. These days such a light sentence is unheard of… most often it is far lighter. Which is why it ain’t a gonna stop anytime soon.
Tionico, when that asswipe got out of DOC I ran into him. He complained that his left knee hurts all the time. I said, ” Don’t fight with the law and you won’t get hurt.”
So cop gets called about a drug taking sex pervert and the response is to drive up, stand 30ft away and yell at the perv for 5 seconds and then get back into the cop car and drive away?
That’s policing 2024 in your city?
That sounds like a pretty poor value for your tax dollars.
Like in most cities there’s no point in actually policing. It’s all catch and release so why bother taking the risk of injury to catch.
Show up. Radio that you’re there thereby fulfilling your obligation. Then leave.
Even if the cop hauled the bum in he’d be right back there at it again in hours.
All these leftist cities seem to want to be awash in addicts and schizos. It’s part of that hip and cool urban life they brag about all the time. If they didn’t want it to be this way they’d do something about it. The ones who pretend not to like it like this excuse their inaction by throwing up their hands and saying there isn’t anything they can do or that it’s a greater existential problem of the world therefore out of their hands. The fact that there are cities that aren’t living this way is dismissed by saying those cities are racist, fascist, cruel, etc…
As the illegals are bussed to sanctuaries so should be the addicts and schizos. These cities obviously want it this way. Everybody else should build a wall. Don’t let these lefties escape. They should be made to lay in the beds they e made for themselves. They should suffer the fruit of their policies to the fullest possible extent. No mercy, no quarter, no white knighting. Fuck these people.
If policing around the country has a near universal response of not doing anything then….
this country needs a central dumping ground where all these folks get shipped to so that they can enjoy their drugs until the day they decide to clean up their act or they die. The Guttfeld! solution.
Joe Arpaio had i figured out back when, in Arizona. He cut recidivism down to single digits, reduced the prison population in his county to almost nothing, and reduced general crime rates in his territory to numbers only dreampt about today. He was so hated and despised by the librullz he got run out of office in a “questionable” election thus assuring the unwanted behaviour would never end. And yes, the libruls still have full sway there, and crime, homelessness has increased exponentially and similarly increasing rates where Joe had them in decline for years.
The ONLY thing that will reduce unwanted behaviour is to tip the risk-reward equation so far in favour of the risk side that the miscreants decide life is better when community standards are honoured and upheld.
This is a principle Dopey Joey and his minions refuse to acknowledge. Its almost as if they really WANT things to keep going to the Hot Place in a handbasket.
I liked Joe Arpaio, and his policies.
Like, housing overflow prisoners in surplus Army tents. Sure, it’s hotter than blazes in summer, but that motivates them not to be in those tents in daylight hours.
Like, lunch being a bologna sandwich. It’s jail, not a Subway restaurant…
Would it be easier and cheaper to build walls around these sanctuary cities than to build a wall along the southern border?
Perhaps. And would give everyone a convenient, nearby location to deposit their trash.
The only difference between a sanctuary city and a John Carpenter style “Escape from …” zone is the enclosure.
It might be, but the problem with DOING that i that the undesirable characters would continue their northward slithering and eventually end up landing SOMEWHERE. Since the Sanct Cities would be sealed, they’d end up somewhere else instead. The cure is to send them back when found, and make it somewhere between difficult and impossible to keep swarming northward.
Maybe something like informing AMLO that all remittance transfers into his country will be assessed a fifty percent “handling and conveyance” fee.
Call it an “anti-fascist protection barrier” and even dacian and miner would beg for it to be built.
“always assume that homeless people have a knife and might stab you with it,”
Close, but not quite right. How about “always assume that anyone acting abnormally might be dangerous, and cover all your bases”. The crazy may not be homeless. He/she may not have a knife, instead has a concealed firearm. Or an explosive. Or his buddy is sneaking up behind you with the Big Frigging Knife. Never assume that the “homeless” guy is acting alone, FFS.
I said much the same thing in the first article, as is being said here. Someone defended the officer’s mistake, claiming that for all the officer knew, this perp was the business owner. I call nonsense. The freak looks like a freak. Officer never should have allowed the perp to get so close, without either drawing his weapon, or having backup ready.
Officer made a fatal mistake.
“Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!”
As police, or as an armed citizen you can’t draw down on every single person that you think is acting a bit off or you’d be fired and or charged within a week.
A use of force on a citizen is a seizure of that citizens person, so you need to at a minimum have the legal standard of reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime to even detain someone with handcuffs not using any force outside of the mere application of handcuffs, much less pointing a gun at them.
He was within conversational distance of the guy that killed him. The alternative is to stand 50 feet away from everyone you come into contact with and just yell at them, which again would most likely end up with you being fired for seeming to be nuts.
All I’m trying to say is that I think a lot of people are looking at this as if they are in a training exercise for a use of force scenario, and thinking “what’s the most tactical way I could handle this?” The problem is if you take the most hardcore tactical approach to every single situation you’re going to end up pulling weapons on a whole lot of innocent people.
There are some things he could have done better, such as standing at a 45 degree angle from the guy then if the guy rotates to square up with you it may be time to escalate things. Or yes, waiting for backup would be preferred but sometimes everyone is tied up and it’s not feasible.
Just some thoughts
The armed peace officer has ALREADY brought a firearm into the situation by his simple presence. So has the armed citizen. No one is advancing the idea that we all need fifty foot security zones. This now departed officer DID mess up, failed to cover his position, and ate the big one for it. The guy is obviously a creep, keep your distance until you are well assured his intent is not harmful. An officer can bark orders to stand back, turn himself around and face away, stretch his open hands out to his sides, etc. That conduct won’t win him the warm fuzzy prize for the day, but greatly reduces the likelihood of winning the prize he DID win. These creepy homeless critters are cntrolling large segments of our cities and towns by their very presence, refusal to be controlled, to abide by basic standards of civility, etc. My city have managed to expend a few millions of OUR money with the results that the homeless have been shuffled about a bit within the city, but are still in control of their “turf”. The gas station in that art of town have been forced to adopt a policy I’ve not seen anywhere else, and it is ot only a pain, it adds to the higher cost of their fuel. I needed to use the restroom early on. The chap had to lock the till, step round a corner, pick up a longish “bat” with a chain attached and a HUGE metal tag at the end of that chain. Maybe eight inches across? He then escorted me to the Necessary Room, inserted the key also attached to tht plate, pushed the door open and escorted me in. Before he could leave I asked “the homeless are that bad around here?” He chuckled and said oh yes, they are that bad. He was already at the double quick to make it back to his station at the till before anything else could happen. I checked discreetly and saw no hint of his being armed. I elected not to ask in that regard, it likely being a very sensitive issue then and there. I KNOW I’d never take that position unless I KNEW my being armed would be permissible. k
No one is advocating that we all need fifty foot security zones in all cases.
The context here is the ‘unknown’ and no reason to think friendly/safe until proven otherwise by ‘situational awareness’ logic. For example; You know that its less likely that clerk behind the counter of the convenience store will attack you – but at the same time you know that a group of guys with gang tattoos hanging around out side a convenience and watching your very move and whispering back and forth and looking at you is probably not interested in you because they like you a lot so yeah it might be a good idea to create some distance between you and them (and probably just drive off and leave and not go into the store to begin with).
And then there is a thing that certain categories of people do tend towards criminal violence.
For example, 6% of the U.S. population commits a little over 60% of the murders and that 6% just so happens to lie in a certain demographic but not all in that demographic tend towards criminal violence.
Another example, ~70% of non-firearm violent crimes (excluding rape and intimate/domestic partner attacks. And excluding acts of violence against victims committed during robbery or home invasion or in other words attacks upon victims in public spaces outside the home and not in a business being robbed) are committed by violent people that are homeless and they use a knife or other sharpened/pointed object or another hand-held non-firearm object (e.g. blunt object, brick, etc…). The average distance from the victim in most of these attacks when the homeless person begins their attack approach is 15 – 20 feet. But also not all homeless people become violent.
The context here is the ‘unknown’ and no reason to think friendly/safe until proven otherwise by ‘situational awareness’ logic. We can’t live our lives trying to constantly ensure a fifty foot, or any certain distance, security zone in all cases and no one is advocating that. In short, overall, the words to use are ‘situational awareness’ and ‘caution’ and ‘avoid’ – but in any case, be prepared because that criminal violence can come to you when it chooses and at the time and place it chooses and that is something beyond your control. If it was something within our control, criminals would always fail or never be able to commit crimes.
(Virginia) Gun Controllers All But Defeated In Their MASSIVE Push… & Their Supporters Are Left Dazed & Confused.
How Exactly Would the Injunction Work on Washington’s Magazine Ban?
Ahhh.. how about a road trip. Find wht you need, pay cash for it, and.. uhm, leave it at the side of the road as you re-enter Washington………
{The local LE}
“When I called them about a homeless man who was doing drugs and masturbating on the sidewalk in front of my house, the officer didn’t get anywhere close to the man.”
Jennifer, if where I lived had problems with vagrants using drugs and ‘jacking it’ in front of my house, I’d seriously consider moving.
Just sayin’… 🙁
The officer probably weighed the situation as safe and it backfired on him. Thanks to the citizen the perp can do no.more harm. My condolences to the officer’s family. Keep the faith.
Yes it initially appears on the video that the cop thinks he’s talking to the person who called the cops, not the perp himself. This whole thing was just awful. It’s definitely made me more aware of my (lack of) situational awareness.
I’d get my ski mask and ball bat, drive to the other side of the block, walk back and that post would gtfo of my area or else! People are gutless these days
Unknown WOKESTER just made Trump’s BEST AD!!
Heh heh, two nights ago I caught the guy who walked into my girlfiends house ( “just thought you might want some company”)after he had run his fingers through her hair earlier that day.
Up close a niffe is faster then a gunm.
She keeps her doors locked now but I don’t think that guys coming over no more.☠
Damn! I’m surprised Pam didn’t give him some heartburn with that SA she keeps lying around. Or, that Behring knife.
She was out of barbque sauce.
She loaned out her mop.
I lost my meat cleaver.
And the cauldron was already full.
You can’t post a link that’s not sign in required liberal tube?
I recommend that we all start thinking of ways to motivate people such as Ms. Sensiba’s sidewalk druggy-pervert-loser to “move along”.
For reference, as you consider ways to motivate such scumbags to “move along”, note that you should not initiate your actions from your own home. Why? Because said scumbag may return later to vandalize your home in retaliation. Instead, it would be really nice if you have an agreement with a friend (who lives somewhere else) to provide the motivation at each other’s location so that the scumbag has no idea where to retaliate.
Any thoughts on legal ways to motivate such a loser to “move along”?????
As smart as you are I cannot believe you do not know a peroid or comma belongs inside the quote. You have the correct ” location for using the ?????
Formal English grammar certainly directs us to put commas and periods inside of double quotation marks when we are quoting something specific that someone said.
I am under the impression that rule does not apply to a novelty expression which is not a specific quote of someone. I could be wrong in that particular regard. Any English grammar experts care to weigh in?
(Bonus points: are we supposed to capitalize the “g” in grammar since it is attached to English which is a formal educational subject?)
uncommon,
The way my grammar teachers always taught it to me is that the punctuation for an actual quote (i.e., the punctuation actually contained in the quote) went inside the quotation marks, but if the quotation was not a full sentence, but was contained within another sentence, THAT sentence required its own punctuation. Where the quote is a fragmentary quote (less than a full sentence, and not necessarily containing punctuation), but the fragmentary quote was the ending of the sentence, the ending punctuation for the sentence went outside the quotation marks. Or, if the quote did contain punctuation, and still ended the sentence, you needed the quoted punctuation marks within the quotes, but additional punctuation, outside the quotation marks, to end the sentence. (Whew!)
Throw Rattlesnakes.
Release the hounds.
Or as my girlfiend just mentioned, stick the bullet in the gunm, throw the gunm in the truck, jump in the truck and run him over
The first words out of any officer’s mouth should always be “Police, show me your hands”.
RIP officer and kudos citizen.
I thought it was, “Stop or I will dial 911!”
To the Officer, REST IN PEACE. To his family, my most sincere condolences.
PAYERS NEEDED ALL AROUND
DARN CRAZY PEOPLE / PERSON
KNIVE WEAPON JUST OR MORE SO A DANGER ALSO
Duz anyone know if there’s a shoulder holster for my machete? Bring a sword to a knife fight.
Yet coverage on the news is minimal. No narrative, no coverage. This reinforces that it is not the weapon, it’s the people.
“When I called them about a homeless man who was doing drugs and masturbating on the sidewalk in front of my house”
“Hello police? There is what appears to be a dead body at the intersection.”
I’d get my ski mask and ball bat, drive to the other side of the block, walk back and that post would gtfo of my area or else! People are gutless these days
This is exactly why training in the Tueller Drill is so important.
“…. I was a little disappointed that they didn’t remove him from the neighborhood, but after the officer drove away, the man did at least leave.”
Maybe don’t walk around naked with the blinds/curtains/shades open, don’t be prancing about flitting from room to room in a bra and panties for those walking by to see from the sidewalk and refrain from changing in front of the picture window. There are places for behavior like that …. reddit and OnlyFans.
My instructor made us practice for this exact problem during our CCW , you
have 2 secs ave, distance is your friend.